Author
Topic: Will 'fake news' lead us all down the rabbit hole of censorship? (Read 1661 times)

We are all aware of the fake news phenomenon or what is being called a phenomenon. It's actually business as usual, but we're being told by some that we need to clamp down on it and punish the people putting it out there, but I am a conspiracy theory follower to an extent. It's being put out there to discredit a free press to make the public willing to accept that we need censorship to protect us from "the bad guys". Oh yes, we have to have our bad guys and boogie men so big daddy's can protect us..This, in my opinion has been quite intentionally foisted on us. Is there fake news? Sure there is, but it's certainly not anything new. Fake news has been around as long as news itself, but now it's taken on a life of its own and we're being fooled into thinking that the only way to counter fake news is to punish those who put it out there and of course in order to determine what's fake and not fake we need the king of fake who is the ONLY person who can tell the difference. To paraphrase the orange one, 'Only I and I alone can fix it. 'Personally I'm ok with deciding for myself whether I believe something or not. But we have a two headed monster. If you ask 1000 people if they think that they are smart enough to determine what is fake or not fake I'm guessing that 999.99% of them will say they're just too smart to be taken in by the fakes, but the truth is most likely they're too stupid to figure out which hole to shit out of much less determine fake news vs real news. On the other hand, those who tell us that they are always smarter are almost always lying to us. So...where do we go from here? Do we bestow the power to determine fake vs not fake to someone known to lie? Do we accept that most of the news is already fake and take our chances and hope that we will make the right decisions? Once we start jailing anyone putting out fake news where does it stop? Will satire die and anyone telling jokes get thrown in prison for reporting fake news? Remember, the authorities always have your best interest in mind and it's illegal to tell lies online, on TV and in print. They can't say that if it isn't true... Right? In the spirit of always panicking let's do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to stop the spread of fake news even if it means appointing the orange shit pile as king for life!

We are all aware of the fake news phenomenon or what is being called a phenomenon. It's actually business as usual, but we're being told by some that we need to clamp down on it and punish the people putting it out there, but I am a conspiracy theory follower to an extent. It's being put out there to discredit a free press to make the public willing to accept that we need censorship to protect us from "the bad guys". Oh yes, we have to have our bad guys and boogie men so big daddy's can protect us..This, in my opinion has been quite intentionally foisted on us. Is there fake news? Sure there is, but it's certainly not anything new. Fake news has been around as long as news itself, but now it's taken on a life of its own and we're being fooled into thinking that the only way to counter fake news is to punish those who put it out there and of course in order to determine what's fake and not fake we need the king of fake who is the ONLY person who can tell the difference. To paraphrase the orange one, 'Only I and I alone can fix it. 'Personally I'm ok with deciding for myself whether I believe something or not. But we have a two headed monster. If you ask 1000 people if they think that they are smart enough to determine what is fake or not fake I'm guessing that 999.99% of them will say they're just too smart to be taken in by the fakes, but the truth is most likely they're too stupid to figure out which hole to shit out of much less determine fake news vs real news. On the other hand, those who tell us that they are always smarter are almost always lying to us. So...where do we go from here? Do we bestow the power to determine fake vs not fake to someone known to lie? Do we accept that most of the news is already fake and take our chances and hope that we will make the right decisions? Once we start jailing anyone putting out fake news where does it stop? Will satire die and anyone telling jokes get thrown in prison for reporting fake news? Remember, the authorities always have your best interest in mind and it's illegal to tell lies online, on TV and in print. They can't say that if it isn't true... Right? In the spirit of always panicking let's do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to stop the spread of fake news even if it means appointing the orange shit pile as king for life!

It's being put out there to discredit a free press to make the public willing to accept that we need censorship to protect us from "the bad guys".

The problem is that the "free press" includes a substantial amount of "infotainment", disinformation, and out and out lying masquerading as legitimate news. (Mainstream sources are guilty of this to some degree, as well) Disturbingly, lots of people can't tell the difference and get suckered in by the most ridiculous lies. We even had a gunman show up at a pizza place as a direct result of this stuff. Clearly, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.

Also, afaik, no one is seriously suggesting censorship.

Quote

This, in my opinion has been quite intentionally foisted on us. Is there fake news? Sure there is, but it's certainly not anything new. Fake news has been around as long as news itself, but now it's taken on a life of its own and we're being fooled into thinking that the only way to counter fake news is to punish those who put it out there and of course in order to determine what's fake and not fake we need the king of fake who is the ONLY person who can tell the difference. To paraphrase the orange one, 'Only I and I alone can fix it. '

Is this actually what's going on?

Quote

Personally I'm ok with deciding for myself whether I believe something or not.

As am I. As is everyone. But obviously, this system is not entirely working.

Quote

If you ask 1000 people if they think that they are smart enough to determine what is fake or not fake I'm guessing that 999.99% of them will say they're just too smart to be taken in by the fakes, but the truth is most likely they're too stupid to figure out which hole to shit out of much less determine fake news vs real news.

Heh. Might this have some relevance on your adoption of some conspiracy theories? :P

Quote

So...where do we go from here? Do we bestow the power to determine fake vs not fake to someone known to lie?

Imho, implementing some sort of reputation-based system would be best. You look at your facebook feed and news stories are marked with red circles for articles originating from Infowars and green circles for articles originating from the Associated Press. The problem is in the details - who gets to make that determination and the criteria for these reputations (for example, what reputation should "opinion pieces" have? Should speculation on whether or not the global elite are vampires have the same reputation as an editorial denouncing Trump's travel ban?)

That or we could all check with Snopes regularly. Ideally, we'd all possess enough skepticism to not need any sort of help determining what's real and what's fake. But if that were the case, fake news would simply wither on the vine, and that's not what's happening.

Quote

In the spirit of always panicking let's do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to stop the spread of fake news even if it means appointing the orange shit pile as king for life!

I still want to be able to decide what's fake or not. I might be wrong, but then I hope I figure out in the end what is a lie and what is the truth in a news report.

Yeah, but it'd be pretty burdensome for each person to factcheck each article they read. And obviously, a lot of people don't do any factchecking at all. Hell, I've seen people take articles from The Onion seriously and they don't even try to disguise themselves as legitimate news.

Instead of going through the time-consuming process of fact-checking every article (multiplied by each reader), It'd be more efficient for news sites to have some sort of reputation score. You get a link from a generally disreputable source (I'm not talking about a source that's just accused of 'bias' by one party or another, I'm talking seriously fake stuff) and it's marked appropriately so you know at a glance that the article might be fishy. Then you can decide if you should take the time to factcheck it or not. You're still making your own call, the only difference here is that you get forewarned.

Ideally, individual articles could also have their own reputation score that gets continually updated based on readers' feedback. That way, when some anti-vaxxer links The Lancet article on the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism, when you click on the link, you get both the article and a notification that the research paper the article was based on was found to be fraudulent.

Eh...there's that whole PewDiePie thing in the Wall Street Journal. There was that Brian Williams scandal. There was also some culpability in the WMD hysteria back when the US was about to invade Iraq. That's just off the top of my head. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of other examples. It's very worrisome.

Eh...there's that whole PewDiePie thing in the Wall Street Journal. There was that Brian Williams scandal. There was also some culpability in the WMD hysteria back when the US was about to invade Iraq. That's just off the top of my head. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of other examples. It's very worrisome.

Factchecking ... the way it used to be done, two newspapers in every town. One D paper and one R paper. Depending on if you are a D or an R ... the paper of the other party is total F and the paper of your party is total T. You Trekkies still think there is an objective Star Ship Commander log that you can consult. And frankly, I prefer the Onion, to the MSM, any day.

The fact-checking was done. It is not the fault of the newspapers that the sources were the ones lying. Considering that every news source reported the same things based on the same source information is not the fault of the news so much as it is the sources who did not have the correct information.

I.E., in the case of Bush and WMD, Bush was the one who was "certain" that those weapons were there. How is the news going to source check that other than directly hearing it from the president and the supposed "intelligence" committee.

Bush merely wanted there to be WMD so that he could go to war to win oil.

The stupid American people ate it up not because the news said it was so, but because Bush said it was so.

The fact-checking was done. It is not the fault of the newspapers that the sources were the ones lying. Considering that every news source reported the same things based on the same source information is not the fault of the news so much as it is the sources who did not have the correct information.

If you get a scoop that there's a shootout in progress at the Lincoln Memorial, you check with relevant authorities (the police in this example) to confirm that this is really going on, you don't just start printing immediately and then push all the blame on the source if the tip turns out to be bogus.

In some situations, that's not always possible, like Presidential statements based on classified information. Obviously, fact-checking that is impossible. But as my link alleges, "Major news organizations aided and abetted the Bush administration's march to war on what turned out to be faulty premises. All too often, skepticism was checked at the door, and the shaky claims of top officials and unnamed sources were trumpeted as fact."

You can't look at that and reasonably claim that no mistakes were made. Mistakes were made aplenty.

Fake News(TM), as a meme, was invented by the MSM. Donald isn't the one who created the term. Rather he's using the term to, as they say, 'give them a taste of their own medicine.' The majority of the American population is in the MSM's pocket; not Donald's. Your blame is unfounded; direct it to the real culprits.

Fake News(TM), as a meme, was invented by the MSM. Donald isn't the one who created the term. Rather he's using the term to, as they say, 'give them a taste of their own medicine.' The majority of the American population is in the MSM's pocket; not Donald's. Your blame is unfounded; direct it to the real culprits.

Pizzagate is real and I will fight anyone who says otherwise (srs.)

Nope ... there are no icky things on Weiner's laptop ... you've reviewed it with the FBI, right?